Off Tangent Comix

 
Leave a comment.
 
See continuing updates on the APA, DSM, and the upcoming DSM Fifth Edition (DSM-V).
 
See our Annotated List of DSM-related news, research reports, analyses, and opinion pieces.
 
Visit the TS-Si Article Archive for reports on science, medicine, government, society, and other topics.
Chad A. Mirkin, Northwestern University, George B. Rathmann Professor of Chemistry in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. Photo by Bill Arsenault. 

DNA Blueprints Guide The Construction Of Specific Human Structures

Chad Mirkin discusses using DNA to build a three-dimensional structure out of gold, likening the process to building a house. Starting with basic materials such as bricks, wood, siding, stone and shingles, a construction team can build many different types of houses out of the same building blocks.
 
The article includes an audio recording of the full interview. Photo courtesy of the UCSD School of Medicine.
The Evolution And Significance Of Imprinted Genes Print E-mail
Science - Genetics & Genome
TS-Si News Service   
Tuesday, 24 June 2008 17:00
Crowd Scene.
Epigenetics & Epigenomics
 
 
 
 
 
 
Epigenetics & Epigenomics. Traditional genetics attributes human characteristics to a simple arithmetical combination of inheritable traits from unchanging genes. As a result, genetic mutations and recombinations have driven most descriptions of how traits are handed down from one generation to another.
 
The discovery and understanding of DNA, and the role of non-coding (junk) DNA, reveals a more complex — and subtle — situation. Today, scientists know that heritable changes in gene function can occur without a change in the DNA sequence. Called epigenetics, this insight has further changed the way researchers think about heredity. Epigenetics bridges the gap between nature and nurture.
 
Both epigenetics and epigenomics — the genomewide distribution of epigenetic changes — are related to many other topics requiring a thorough understanding of all aspects of genetics. The latter includes aging, agriculture, cloning, evolution, sexual differentiation, species conservation, stem cells, and synthetic biology.
 

 
There are more than 200 different cell types in the human body; each cell contains the same genetic information and can, in theory, synthesize the same proteins. However, each cell type is unique and synthesizes a specific set of proteins. Nerve cells synthesize proteins that are necessary for generating nerve cells, muscle cells synthesize those necessary for building muscle fibers, etc. 
 
This specialization takes place during early embryonic development and continues throughout a person's life. Cells exercise control over their own development using a mechanism called epigenetic regulation, which “opens” or "closes" the DNA structure. Differences in protein synthesis result from the activation and inactivation of genes. 
 
This is fundamental to all animals, humans, and plants (eukaryotic cells). It is involved in tissue regeneration and the preservation of stem cells and DNA.
 
Epigenetic processes are natural and essential to many organism functions, but disruptions can result in major adverse health and behavioral effects. Variations in epigenetic gene activity regulation are causally connected in human beings to disruptions in early embryonic development and serious diseases.
 
The cell has to condense two meters of DNA inside a 1/100 millimeter diameter body. During the condensation process, the cell mechanism determines which genes activate. A special group of proteins, called the histones, plays a central part during this process.
 
The DNA is wound around the histones — which also determine the DNA structure — during condensation. They attach a number of complex and relatively unknown combinations of small chemical modifications under the influence of different enzymes. This opens and closes parts of the DNA structure to regulate gene activation — specific for each of our distinct cell types. 
 

 
Most epigenetic modifications are erased with each new generation, during gametogenesis and after fertilization. Recent reports suggest that some epigenetic changes may endure in at least four subsequent generations of organisms. If reproducible, the findings could suggest some interesting new approaches. Other studies have found that epigenetic effects occur not just in the womb, but over the full course of a human life span.
 
Imprinted genes don't rely on the traditional laws of Mendelian genetics, which describe the inheritance of traits as either dominant or recessive. In Mendelian genetics, both parental copies are equally likely to contribute to the outcome. The impact of an imprinted gene copy, however, depends only on which parent it was inherited from. For some imprinted genes, the cell only uses the copy from the mother to make proteins, and for others only that from the father.
 
In the mid 1980s, scientists studying mice discovered that normal development requires the inheritance of genetic material from both a male and a female. The resulting variances changed, depending on the material's origin. 
 
One hypothesis has it that imprinting regulates embryonic growth. Maternally-expressed imprinted genes usually suppress growth, while those from the male parent usually enhance growth, ensuring continuation of the father's genes.
 
This is important for a species in which a single litter of offspring can result from the contributions of more than one male. However, the mother, interested in her own health maintenance (biologically speaking), "fights" the paternal genes and limits the size of the embryo or fetus.
Washington, DC, USA. A gene located on a chromosome other than the sex chromosomes is autosomal. We inherit two copies: one each from our biological mother and father. Generally, both are functional, but in a small subset one copy is turned off. One gene copy was marked, or imprinted, in either egg or sperm. 
 
The standard human genome contains 46 chromosomes: 23 from the mother and 23 from the father. The general human pattern consists of two copies of every gene (excluding some irregularity in the sex chromosomes). Which parent contributes a specific chromosome has no effect on the expression of the genes found there. Imprinted expression can vary between tissues, developmental stages, and even species.
 

 
The Evolution of the DLK1-DIO3 Imprinted Domain in Mammals. Carol A. Edwards, et al. PLoS Biology 6(6) e135 doi: 10.1371 / journal.pbio.0060135.  [ Download PDF ]
 
The evolution of imprinting: chromosomal mapping of orthologues of mammalian imprinted domains in monotreme and marsupial mammals. Carol A. Edwards, et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2007, 7:157. doi: 10.1186 / 1471-2148-7-157.
 

 
Exceptions to the rule are caused by a phenomenon in which specific genes are expressed in a parent-of-origin-specific manner. Called genomic imprinting, or modification of DNA, it is a form of gene expression influenced by which parent supplied the gene.
 
The phenomenon of genomic imprinting evolved in a common ancestor to marsupials and eutherian mammals over 150 million years ago. Its evolution apparently occurred because of a parental battle between the sexes to control the maternal expenditure of resources to the offspring.
 
And the phenomenon doesn't seem to have originated in association with sex chromosomes. Genomic imprinting evolved in mammals with the advent of live birth. The expression of genes of one parent over the other is now better understood through studying representatives of the existing lineages of mammals: the platypus and marsupial wallaby.
 
Genomic imprinting is an inheritance process unknown to classical Mendelian inheritance. [N1] The imprinting process is one in which specific genes on chromosomes that have been inherited from one parent are expressed in an organism, while the same genes on the chromosome inherited from the other parent are repressed. That is, imprinted genes are either expressed only from an allele inherited from either the mother or the father.
 
From the father, expressed imprinted genes tend to promote growth while the mother's contribution suppresses it. Paternally expressed genes enhance the extraction of a mother's nutrients during pregnancy, but the maternal genome seeks to limit it.
 
Dr. Anne C Ferguson-Smith, Reader in Developmental Genetics, Department of Anatomy, University of Cambridge.

Dr. Anne C Ferguson-Smith, Reader in Developmental Genetics, Department of Anatomy, University of Cambridge.

 
A new paper in PLoS Biology investigates the evolution of genomic imprinting in a specific region of the mammalian genome [C1].
 
The work by Anne Ferguson-Smith, and colleagues in the UK and Australia, shows that different regions became imprinted at different times during mammalian evolution.
 
Imprinting arises from some kind of epigenetic memory — modifications to the DNA from one parent, such as the way the chromosomal material is packaged, that do not allow particular genes to be expressed [Cf. sidebar].
 
The reasons why imprinting evolved with the advent of live birth have not been clearly understood. However, it is known that different patterns of imprinting occur in different classes of mammals, with some classes of mammals exhibiting the phenomenon and others that do not.
  • One theory is that imprinted genes arose from sex chromosomes, which can be epigenetically 'shut down' to control the gene dosage.
     
  • Another idea is that imprinting arose from an ancestral chromosome that was itself imprinted. However, the latter notion begs the question and raises the same questions, only more remote in time.
A group from the the University of Cambridge tested these ideas by mapping known sequences of imprinted genes in two mammals, the monotreme platypus and the marsupial wallaby, which occupy distinct positions in mammalian evolution.
  • The results of the distribution studies suggest that imprinted genes were not located on an ancestrally imprinted chromosome, nor were they associated with sex chromosomes.
     
  • Rather it appears that imprinting evolved in a stepwise, adaptive way, with each gene or cluster becoming imprinted as the need arose.

The developing hypothesis for the evolution of genomic imprinting decribes the conflicting interests of mother and father relating to offspring development.

The conflicting interests of mother and father can lead to dominance by one at the expense of the other, or even a standoff where neither succeeds.
 
Imprinted genes are targets for numerous human difficulties because because a single genomic (or epigenomic) change can disrupt their function and cause potentially disastrous health effects. Imprinting anomalies often manifest as developmental and neurological disorders when they occur during early development, and as cancer when altered later in life.
 
Genetic conflicts can lead to a variety of imprinting disorders. For example,
 
• the lack of paternal imprinting for a copy of gene 15q11 will result in Prader-Willi syndrome (hypotonia, obesity, and hypogonadism)
 
• if neither copy has maternal imprinting, the result is Angelman syndrome (epilepsy, tremors, and a perpetually smiling facial expression).
 
Other conditions under investigation include Alzheimer disease, autism, bipolar disorder, diabetes, male sexual orientation, obesity, and schizophrenia. Cancer research has identified cancers of the bladder, breast, cervical, colorectal, esophageal, hepatocellular, lung, mesothelioma, ovarian, prostate, testicular, and leukemia, among others.
 
More positively, in some conditions where two parents contribute to producing young together, each parent benefits evolutionarily by coercing the other into investing more in the baby. The investment will benefit their own genes (in the form of their child) and cost an individual that is genetically unrelated — the mate.
 
Therefore, genes in the father may benefit from producing a placenta that demands a lot of maternal resources, and thus there would be a selection pressure to modify sperm — but not eggs — so that the genes they carry are expressed in a way that builds a demanding placenta.
 
Indeed, in mammals, imprinting seems to have arisen in line with the evolution of the placenta and the new work by Ferguson-Smith et al. supports this insight.
 
Because the evolutionary relationship between mammals is well documented, patterns of imprinting in the different genomes can provide important clues about the evolution of imprinting. There are three existing lineages of mammals:
  • placental mammals (including humans),
     
  • marsupial mammals (which have a simpler form of placenta, and include kangaroos, koala bears, etc.), and
     
  • monotremes (egg laying mammals, e.g. the duck-billed platypus).
When comparing these three mammalian groups at a specific region of the genome (called Dlk1-Dio3), Ferguson-Smith et al. found that imprinting occurred only in placental mammals.
 

Ferguson-Smith et al. have shown that imprinting of the mammalian genome occurred gradually

This finding contrasts with previous work, which has found regions imprinted in both marsupials and placentals, but not in monotremes.
 
Thus, together with previous work published in BMC Evolutionary Biology [C2], Ferguson-Smith et al. have shown that imprinting of the mammalian genome occurred gradually. Some genes became differentially expressed before the marsupial-placental common ancestor and others afterwards.
 
That different regions changed at different times suggests that these changes were in response to selection pressures and therefore are adaptive — beneficial to survival/reproductive fitness rather than a by-product of another process.
 
Interestingly, the genetic comparisons Ferguson-Smith and colleagues have made show that imprinting correlates with highly repetitive regions of DNA. In marsupials, the Dlk1-Dio3 region is double the length found in placental mammals, due to random insertion of non-coding DNA, whereas in the different placental lineages, the region has very little non-coding sequence,
 
 


[C1] The Evolution of the DLK1-DIO3 Imprinted Domain in Mammals. Carol A. Edwards, Andrew J. Mungall, Lucy Matthews, Edward Ryder, Dionne J. Gray, Andrew J. Pask, Geoffrey Shaw, Jennifer A.M. Graves, Jane Rogers, the SAVOIR consortium, Ian Dunham, Marilyn B. Renfree, Anne C. Ferguson-Smith. PLoS Biology 6(6) e135 doi: 10.1371 / journal.pbio.0060135.  [ Download PDF ]

Abstract

A comprehensive, domain-wide comparative analysis of genomic imprinting between mammals that imprint and those that do not can provide valuable information about how and why imprinting evolved. The imprinting status, DNA methylation, and genomic landscape of the Dlk1-Dio3 cluster were determined in eutherian, metatherian, and prototherian mammals including tammar wallaby and platypus. Imprinting across the whole domain evolved after the divergence of eutherian from marsupial mammals and in eutherians is under strong purifying selection. The marsupial locus at 1.6 megabases, is double that of eutherians due to the accumulation of LINE repeats. Comparative sequence analysis of the domain in seven vertebrates determined evolutionary conserved regions common to particular sub-groups and to all vertebrates. The emergence of Dlk1-Dio3 imprinting in eutherians has occurred on the maternally inherited chromosome and is associated with region-specific resistance to expansion by repetitive elements and the local introduction of noncoding transcripts including microRNAs and C/D small nucleolar RNAs. A recent mammal-specific retrotransposition event led to the formation of a completely new gene only in the eutherian domain, which may have driven imprinting at the cluster.

Author Summary

Mammals have two copies of each gene in their somatic cells, and most of these gene pairs are regulated and expressed simultaneously. A fraction of mammalian genes, however, is subject to imprinting—a chemical modification that marks a gene according to its parental origin, so that one parent's copy is expressed while the other parent's copy is silenced. How and why this process evolved is the subject of much speculation. Here we have shown that all the genes in one genomic region, Dlk1-Dio3, which are imprinted in placental mammals such as mouse and human, are not imprinted in marsupial (wallaby) or monotreme (platypus) mammals. This is in contrast to a small number of other imprinted genes that are imprinted in marsupials and other therian mammals and indicates that imprinting arose at each genomic domain at different stages of mammalian evolution. We have compared the sequence of the Dlk1-Dio3 region between seven vertebrate species and identified sequences that are differentially represented in mammals that imprint compared to those that do not. Our data indicate that once imprinted gene regulation is acquired in a domain, it becomes evolutionarily constrained to remain unchanged.

[C2] The evolution of imprinting: chromosomal mapping of orthologues of mammalian imprinted domains in monotreme and marsupial mammals. Edwards CA, Rens W, Clarke O, Mungall AJ, Hore T, Graves JAM, Dunham I, Ferguson-Smith AC, Ferguson-Smith MA. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2007, 7:157. doi: 10.1186 / 1471-2148-7-157.
[ Download PDF ]  [ Supplement PDF ]

Abstract

Background. The evolution of genomic imprinting, the parental-origin specific expression of genes, is the subject of much debate. There are several theories to account for how the mechanism evolved including the hypothesis that it was driven by the evolution of X-inactivation, or that it arose from an ancestrally imprinted chromosome.

Results. Here we demonstrate that mammalian orthologues of imprinted genes are dispersed amongst autosomes in both monotreme and marsupial karyotypes.

Conclusion. These data, along with the similar distribution seen in birds, suggest that imprinted genes were not located on an ancestrally imprinted chromosome or associated with a sex chromosome. Our results suggest imprinting evolution was a stepwise, adaptive process, with each gene/cluster independently becoming imprinted as the need arose.

 
Articles sourced from Stateline are prepared and printed with permission and do not necessarily convey an official position of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. TS-Si thanks The Pew Charitable Trusts for support and cooperation.
 
Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
Last Updated on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 07:46